So what? It's what Paul SAID during the filibuster. I heard him repeatedly say that he was not talking about using a drone to stop an ongoing attack, but someone who was NOT an immediate threat. If "most people" can't understand the distinction, that's not Rand Paul's fault.
-> Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.
Do not need to start down this path. No to drones. None
on the US citizen.
His example was a really bad guy sitting in a cafe. And he originally just wanted Holder to answer a question, which he refused to do.
My problem with drones is the use of them for surveillance where there is no warrant and no probable cause. Such as, EPA counting how many cows you have.
Using them in a case where a helicopter might properly be used, such as in giving chase to a fugitive, or covering an ongoing police operation, is no different than using a chopper. But since a cop only has the right to kill a suspect if that suspect is in that moment trying to kill someone, a drone should normally never be used for that purpose. If you draw down on a cop, the cop has the right to defend himself. For a drone to be used in such a situation, we’re talking about something way past ordinary crime.
In any case, a guy like Holder should be able to explain his views on that, and couldn’t.
The problem is the "U.S. citizens" part especially now that we have become a country inundated by illegal aliens, those overstaying their visas, greencarders, and the whole realm of non-citizen interlopers.
Can't believe people are for this. Drones being used in America. He set the opening they could if they had a warrant blah blah blah and if it was a suspected really really bad guy. Not one word from Paul about the police overreaching in Boston. Nothing. Some cases were way over the line. Even my police officer son said wait a minute here. So, now a new division amongst us. I have my side. No drones at all on our citizens.
Why is this so difficult? Drones should be used in the same way that a cop uses his gun. If someone is in imminent danger then deadly force (whether from a gun or from a drone) is allowed. If no one is in imminent danger then you may not use deadly force.
Pretty simple to me.
The media misquoted him? Paint me blue and slap me silly, I’m shocked!
It's like two Greek guys sitting in an outdoor cafe over coffee for hours on end every afternoon arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....while their country's economy is crashing down around their caffein-addled heads.
If Paul, Palin, Bachman, Rush, etal let slip a garbled, unintentional or questionable semantic mystery once in a blue moon, I don't abandon them. They'll clear it up sooner or later.
Should they CONTINUE on the same questionable path, however, I'd call them out....and more!
Leni